Great winged hope?

Massport's plans to take over the Worcester Airport could be too good to be true, unless the city asks the tough questions

by Joe O'Brien

On a bright spring day, the Worcester Airport's passenger terminal is bustling with activity for the first time in years. People in business suits, uniformed police officers, and airport officials mill about the terminal lobby and ticket counters. Unfortunately this crowd is not here to fly. Instead they are gathered for a press conference with Governor Paul Cellucci and with state officials who are here to announce the bailout of the woefully underused airport.

But as the press conference begins, the talk in the crowd centers on the suspicion that today's event has more to do with Boston politics -- namely, building a new runway at the clogged Logan International Airport -- than it does with the future of Worcester's terminal.

If that's true, people whisper, then the governor et al are using Worcester in an elaborate high-stakes political game -- and local political leaders will have to play it right by taking a tough stance in the negotiations. As one local elected official in the crowd says: "We are being used in a good way now [by Massport]. But we need to be careful that we don't get abused."

And that's where Worcester City Council comes in. Though the board is often criticized for micro-managing issues, when it comes to the airport, it seems, councilors are justified in expressing their as-of-late reservations.

While City Manager Tom Hoover and Cellucci work at breakneck speed to sign over Worcester's failing airport, a growing number of people say the city needs to slow down the process. "It would be a catastrophe to simply turn over the keys to Massport," says Mayor Ray Mariano, adding that the city needs to negotiate "a reasonable business deal for everyone."

Not surprisingly, a number of councilors agree, particularly because the city has invested more than $26 million thus far in the airport -- with little return. "It's in our long-term interests to make this deal work," says councilor Tim Murray, but, he cautions, the city needs to make "sure that people are informed out front about the impact."

Everyone seems to agree that the future of the airport is with Massport, but there's growing consensus that Worcester should get answers to three important issues before moving ahead. First, who is going to pay the $5.2 million that is owed in long-term debt on the terminal? Second, what guarantees will the city get for long-term jet service after the Logan runway issue dies down or is resolved? Finally, once Massport takes over, what role, if any, will the city and community have in its operation? (In Boston, there is a community-advisory board that provides input into the airport operation and into its effect on the surrounding communities.) Though the governor's press conference painted a rosy picture, Massport and city officials can't -- or won't -- answer these questions.

Walking through the spacious terminal, you get the sense you're in one of any number of mid-size airports, except for one thing -- there are hardly any flights. But it wasn't always this way. During the mid-1980s the airport prospered (peaking in 1988 when there were 324,777 passengers). Five major carriers flew in and out, and you could take a jet from Worcester to a number of hubs around the country. Over the next five years, however, both the number of flights and passengers plummeted.

By 1993, the woes were addressed, when the city attempted to rejuvenate the airport by investing more than $30 million to build a new terminal, by improving airport runways, and by upgrading landing instrumentation. And after several years of on-and-off negotiations, the city signed a technical-assistance agreement with Massport. This agreement called for state authority to provide almost $800,000 to help market Worcester airport and to provide technical support to airport staff, including consulting, lobbying the FAA, and, perhaps most important, helping with the recruitment of major airlines. Local officials anticipated, or at least hoped, that Massport would use its enormous influence at Logan to encourage other airlines to fly out of Worcester.

The initial response was impressive. Massport launched an aggressive marketing campaign to "fly Worcester." The authority also convinced United Express to begin flights to Washington out of here (in return for giving the carrier coveted gate space at Logan). But the euphoria was short-lived. Six months after its first flight, United Express pulled out of Worcester, citing the low numbers of passengers. Massport continued its marketing efforts, but the airport continued to decline.

Last year the airport was served by only one carrier, US Airways, and a measly 76,329 passengers flew from its terminal. (As opposed to the more than 26 million passengers who flew from Logan last year.)

And a chorus of people will tell you why the airport has failed. Some officials point to the lack of direct highway access. Others say that Airport Hill -- famed for its poor weather conditions -- led to flight cancellations. But the main reason for its decline has been the lack of flights. The current carrier, US Airways Express, flies only small, 19-seater, turbo-prop planes to New York and Philadelphia rather than more efficient jet service to major airline hubs. As one city official says, there's no point marketing an airport with one airline: "It's like spending money telling people to shop downtown when there are not stores to shop in."

Worcester too has decent competition. Not only is it competing with Logan for passengers, it is also caught between two of the fastest-growing airports in the country: TF Green in Rhode Island and Manchester Airport in New Hampshire. While Worcester's passenger load has been in decline for the past 12 years, Manchester's grew from 108,513 to more than 2 million, and the TF Green passenger load grew from 989,000 to 4.6 million, also over 12 years. Those figures were cited in a recent Boston Globe article.

It's a sad story, and one that has many city and business leaders hoping for the eventual Massport takeover. Last year the airport lost more than $1.1 million, a financial drain on the city coffers that has caused a great deal of political anxiety. Massport, for its part, was understandably lukewarm to Worcester's requests to have them take on the responsibility of the airport.

But this all changed when Massport announced plans to build a new runway at Logan earlier this year.

In response, community groups and political leaders from Boston have mobilized to block any runway expansion, citing additional noise and environmental problems that already affect the communities around the airport. Instead of expanding Logan, they've argued, Massport officials should be developing other in-state regional airports like Worcester and New Bedford. Since the Logan announcement, Congressman Joe Moakley (D-Boston) and delegations of state officials have visited Worcester airport to promote its development.

Though they've maintained support for a new Logan runway, Cellucci and Massport have responded by scrambling to promote Worcester. On March 23, before testifying in support of the Logan expansion at a State House hearing, Cellucci filed legislation for Massport to take over Worcester airport. Cellucci and Massport officials have also put together an impressive team of local, state, and federal officials with Central Massachusetts connections. Leading the effort is Massport director and former congressman Peter Blute. Former state senator and congressional candidate Matt Amorello is now the state's highways department chief, and he is leading efforts to address airport access concerns. His agency has called for state funding to build a new access road from the Mass Pike to the airport.

Massport officials are also are working with Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Worcester), who sits on the powerful congressional transportation committee, to help recruit airlines, particularly the critically needed regional jet service. Many supporters say that having so many of the decision makers coming from the area bodes well for the city's prospects of getting the airport deal done.

Even though the local media coverage gave the impression that this was the deal of the century, it was only a "Memorandum of Understanding," an agreement in principle. The agreement calls for Massport to assume operational controls by September, and the eventual takeover to come two to five years later, -- but no final details have yet to emerge.

It is also unclear how this agreement differs in any meaningful way from the current "technical" agreement that the city has with Massport, which failed to deliver what Worcester most desperately needed -- more airline flights.

One state official says that, "They [the governor and Massport officials] are using Worcester and its not real," pointing out that Cellucci first announced his support for the Worcester takeover at a luncheon with the Boston Chamber of Commerce, where he appeared in support of Logan expansion. He also points out that Cellucci filled his Worcester airport legislation on the same day he testified at the State House in support of the Logan runway. He says that local officials have been "playing footsie with Cellucci and Massport for the last five years" to try and get them to assist Worcester airport -- and only now are Cellucci and Massport interested. He cautions that Worcester's political leaders need to be careful that they don't get used by Massport.

No matter what the motivation for the new interest in Worcester's airport, the city could negotiate a good deal -- but not before city leaders negotiate some very critical points. Most important: Massport should assume both the operational and debt service costs for the airport. While Massport officials say that they will not assume the airport's $5.2 million debt, other officials say that it could be done.

Worcester leaders should also take note of the current Massport conflict with Logan's Boston neighbors and make sure that any deal here allows for ongoing local input on airport operations and access issues. Massport's handling of their recent runway-expansion plans has shown that it is not always a good neighbor, and a poorly managed Worcester airport could damage the city's most-established residential neighborhoods.

Finally, the city must get a solid agreement on guarantees that Massport will bring in long-term regional jet service to key hub cities like Cincinnati, Chicago, and Washington. (Sources familiar with airport operations say that Massport and Worcester officials are close to signing a deal with American Airlines to provide jet service to Chicago.) This is the type of service Worcester needs, but will Massport keep pushing Worcester's airport once they have their new runway in Boston?

While the airport deal moves forward, officials like Murray and Mariano promise that they will get the best deal possible for Worcester. But senator Bernstein sums up the issue best by saying: "The real test is not what kind of announcements we can make, but rather [the airport's] service, that will be the real indication of Massport commitment to Worcester."